B) From one perspective, I suppose, but I don't think of it as "flawed"
at all, rather in possession of a God-given asset, free will, a part of
which is the capacity (and freedom) to make a "suboptimal" choice. If
no free will, there is no meaning to a suboptimal choice, or any
decision we might make with respect to relationship, etc. If free will
exists, then the God-given capacity to make "suboptimal" choices is
present. Or is your thinking that Adam and all his successors could
have chosen to make all positive half-plane choices if they wanted to?
[Tick, tick, tick.....]

C) (the big one!) There was no "fall" per se, other than a particular
instantiation of choice. If there is no free choice in this matter,
then the act is meaningless. If there is free choice, then there might
conceivably be a rationale for punishment, but the greater point is
that the possibility/probability of this choice was built into
Creation. Was it a test, or a trap, to see if Adam (or someone else -
or all or us - would step into it? Else why present/create this option,
and then impose such horrific consequence when it is chosen?

It simply brings into question why God would create the potentiality of
"suboptimal" choice without the possibility or even expectation of
Adam's exploration of that large and consequential behavioral space. I
couple that with a question as to why God would let a state so profound
as "corruption of all mankind" hinge about a single act/decision that He
made possible, even probable as an element of Creation. And then
punish the hell out of ...err...into(?) Adam and all his successors for
this one volitional act (that is within the design parameters of
Creation). That works as an illustrative story for me. I am disposed to
think that strong tradition has muted these rather simple (so it seems
to me) questions that accompany it.

Finally, would we be so quick to characterize any other part of God's
mind-shatteringly awesome Creation as "flawed"?

In any case, I think we understand our differences at this point.
Thanks!

Blessings

JimA

Schwarzwald wrote:

Heya Jim,

You seem to be arguing A) Adam had a capacity to make the wrong choice
before that choice was made, B) Therefore he was 'flawed' to begin
with, and further C) this means Adam's fall is not the source of any
flaws.

I think this confuses a capacity to do wrong with the results of doing
wrong. Even if we accept that Adam was 'flawed' (Or, closer to my view,
had the potential to flaw himself) prior to the act of rebellion, the
act itself does constitute a particular change in the story. Adam sees
the world in a different way, and a way he was not (yet?) intended to.
Adam's relationship with God now differs - and the plan God had for
Adam differs as well. There is a new relationship to go with Adam's new
capacity, a harsher one, a different one, but still a relationship.

In other words, even if we take it that Adam had the capacity to make a
wrong choice prior to the fall, there still was (or to put it more
likely, can be) an actual fall, with real repercussions across the
board. The fall is not simply Adam making a bad choice, but includes
the particular repercussions of that choice. Along the lines of how, if
someone takes an addictive drug, their problem is not just that they
chose to take a drug - it includes the results of taking that drug
(addiction).

Well, two out three isn't bad, "imperfect, fallen,
flawed"." Imperfect"
implies that there is a perfect, but that does not gibe with free
will/choice. Fallen was sort of the point of my argument. Fallen,
maybe, but not necessarily by the Adamic act, in which remarkably the
act of a single first-creation man makes an available choice
and shockingly (in light of a Creator invested in His Creations) queers
the state of man's relationship of man for all of successor mankind.
"Flawed" again makes an awful statement with respect to the omnipotence
(or at the very least, transcendent creative power) of God. The
capacity to make a "flawed" decision is created-in, else Adam could not
make such a choice. That makes troublesome the assigning of "flawed" to
that created-in capacity.

The story in light of this is not devoid of meaning at all. It is at
least one of relationship and disappointment, for example. Nor does it
take away from the (perhaps) dawning of awareness of God, and the
awareness of concepts like fulfillment and thwarting of expectation and
hope. It does not void the making of bad choices (and actions),
constituting shortfall with respect to the potential we have to do
otherwise.

I hear the discomfort and understand where you stand, but I don't hear
how one might account for Adam's first sin without the designed-in
capacity to do so. The severity of the corrupted-state consequence
therefore seems at best a bit disproportionate.

I beg y'all's indulgence as this does not fit the affirmation common to
members of ASA. But I come from much the same background as many of you
- mainstream and technical - and this is one of the crunch points for
me, and somewhat like Bernie, my "way" seems to be to test my
understandings from time to time. This is one forum where my experience
has shown that folks can and will push back from a fairly orthodox
place of thoughtfulness, respect, and knowledge that I do not possess
or possess only in part.

Regards

JimA [Friend of ASA]

Schwarzwald wrote:

Heya Jim,

I know you weren't specifically responding to me, but I'd disagree that
the point of this story is "folk explanation of where bad things come
from". Why things are the way they are is definitely part of the story,
but far more seems to be in play - the purposes of man (particularly
that there is and always has been a purpose, however frustrated by man
himself), the state of humanity (not just why things are the way they
are, but WHAT they are - namely, imperfect, fallen, flawed), the nature
of our relationship with God (personal in some aspects, mediated in
others), and so on.

I find it very hard to regard the story as "just a creation story", so
to speak. Adam and Eve are, for lack of a better term, all too human.
Again, I can see how the specifics can vary wildly and for this story
to be true, and for it to be communicating something important. Man is
fallen. Man resists God. Man makes bad choices. Man is in over his head
and needs help. If anything it's shockingly real compared to most other
stories of its 'type'.

I suppose this is oversimplifying, and wouldn't claim any novelty, but
it is very hard for me to buy into this real-or-not, or
to-what-degree-real-or-not discussion.

It seems to me that this is a forest and trees problem. If humans truly
have freedom to make independent choices, then there is automatically
the capacity to make two categories of decisions, let's just call them
"optimal" and "suboptimal".

Adam and Eve in the story pretty clearly had that capacity to make such
choices, pre-"fall". Given our experience that we too apparently have
that same capacity in our time, it would seem that nothing has really
changed in this regard. So "real Adam or not" seems moot. It looks to
me that any given degree of undesirability in choice is intrinsically
part and parcel of free choice.

I recognize the difficulties that flow from this, but it's a simple
observation (I think), and it seems to point to the story of the Garden
as being a folk explanation of where bad things come from, if not from
a capricious god.

JimA [Friend of ASA]

Schwarzwald wrote:

Heya all,

Since we're offering up various perspectives on how to consider Genesis
(particularly with regards to Adam), I'll chime in with my own.

First, I'm never quite sure just where to consider the question of a
"literal Adam" existing. If there was an Adam, a first human complete
with a soul - but his biological parents were some kind of biological
precursor, is that a "literal Adam"? What if the there was a command
from God, an act of disobedience, and a subsequent and real spiritual
fall for all humans thenceforth - but Adam functioned as some kind of
leader or representative? What if there was a communal fall, but one
man was chosen as representative of the story because - even if it was
a 'communal' fall - the most important lesson was that of the
individual acts?

I could go on with possible scenarios, many of which make questions of
evolution superfluous, a non-issue, compatible, or otherwise. But for
me, the greater point is that A) There are a wide range of reasonable
possibilities that mesh with the grand theme of evolution, B) Most or
all of them are still compatible with, ultimately, the same story we
have, and C) It's not clear to me that these stories necessitate
regarding either Adam or the fall as unreal. In fact, I lean towards
the opposite view - I think there is this unfortunate, and often
unexamined habit of thinking 'If Genesis 2 did not play out exactly the
way as I personally interpret it to, there was no Adam and no fall.'
Which I think is along the lines of thinking that, if we have the
details of Socrates' personality wrong, then there was no Socrates.
It's an illicit jump.

So I'd agree with Randy to a degree, except I'd put it this way: It
seems reasonable to me, very reasonable, to regard Genesis 2 as
describing a primeval event. Do I need to know the exact, specific
details of that event? Honestly, no - no more than I need to know the
exact action God engaged in when He formed the planets, the waters,
etc. The repercussions are stated, and to a degree, rather obvious. The
importance of that event, however allegorical or generalized or watered
down from the fuller event, etc, is related to me faithfully. Sure, it
leaves me with some questions - but all answers tend to do that anyway.

I hesitate to do so, but
may I
draw another parallel, even though it's quite a stretch?

My wife enjoys theater of
the
absurd. So I go along and attend all these plays by Samuel Beckett, Ed
Albee, Harold Pinter, and the like. I confess that, ever so
reluctantly, I'm learning to appreciate this genre of theater. (not
that I'll admit it to her!) These plays do live up to their
moniker--taken literally, the script is bizarre and absurd. It simply
doesn't reflect reality as we know it. These plays can only be
understood and appreciated when interpreted through emotion and
intuition. The acting, coupled with the script, portrays emotions with
which the audience can relate. At least, if those of us who are
scientifically inclined leave our scientific minds at the door and
listen by feeling rather than by thinking. It's far beyond me to
describe it but I can see where, at some level, it really works. But
when after the play, I start asking, "did he really do x, y, or z?"
then the understanding disappears. The questions about reality destroy
the signficance.

In some sense, the script
of
the
Bible is similar. (sorry, I can't even bring myself to actually write
the same adjective in the same sentence as the Bible--you get the
point). It doesn't match the reality (i.e. history and science) as we
know it. There are, however, enough points of contact with reality
(just as in the plays) to make you think, well, maybe it does reflect
reality. Dick, for example, keeps reminding us that there are many
common points with other ANE literature, whatever the accuracy may be
of their portrayal or history. Yet, when read at a totally different
level, the text resonates with emotion and powerful theology. If we can
somehow check our scientific and historical brains at the door and
listen to the Word of God at that emotional, theological level, through
the lens of the cross and the risen Christ as George appropriately
keeps reminding us, and keep from asking these history and science
questions at all, then perhaps we can understand what is being said.
But now, we (or at least I) always come back to, well, what really did
happen? What came first? When did that event happen? And then the magic
disappears and the meaning fades and it all seems, well, absurd again.

Am I saying that as
scientists
we
have to check our brains at the door of the church? Yes and no.
Definitely no if one means we have an irrational faith with no basis.
Yes, if you mean we should not interpret God's revelation with the mind
of a scientist or a historian. Again, this does not in any way deny
points of contact with reality. The incarnation and resurrection are a
couple of those crucial points of contact. Neither of those are
understandable from our scientific perspective and yet only through
their perspective do we gain understanding.

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 30 13:16:37 2009